https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114310
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #2) > !?! That doesn't make any sense to me Andrew. This is a failure to match > the insn, not a constraint error. And given the existence of a zero > register, isn't zero valid anywhere a general purpose register is valid? Then the issue is with the other side of UNSPECV_ATOMIC_CMPSW for the isns part rather than the expand part. I had only quickly looked the MD file and what was done to fix the other bug.
